Alot of people don't know but Roy Rogers was really part native American indian(Choctaw) but it seems no one cared he played a Cowboy?
Funny how the greatest Cowboy to ever live was Choctaw indian.Why because he looked the part???Or because people didn't know?
So what's it really about?

Not sure what do you guys think Slap or Not on these issues.

Drifting pretty far off the subject here, but *lots* of cowboys in the past and present are Native Americans. And blacks. And tons of hispanics. "Cowboy" is not a term that is limited to people of one particular ethnicity (or even region --- South America and Australia have very prominent cowboy cultures); never has been.

The biggest slap in the face was Mandarin, simply because he was advertised as one thing and was something entirely different in the actual film. The presented a character, showed him as a focal point to the movie and plot, but turned him into a joke.

Like someone else mentioned, bad movies (Ghost Rider films, Fantastic Four films, XMO: Wolverine, etc etc) aren't slaps to the face. They were just failed attempts at making something worth a crap.

Even Galactus wasn't a slap in the face, because they at least attempted to put him in the cloud, sorta. There are limits to what you can do to keep him from looking ridiculous.

Absorbing Man was an issue, but not the biggest issue in the movie.

Abomination wasn't that bad. It was a new take on his appearance and all, but it fit in well enough with MCU, so I didn't have a problem with him.

Whiplash mainly had an issue with confusion of him being an amalgamation of a few characters rolled into one. The villain himself wasn't "as" bad, but accounting for all factors, that was a mess.

I still wonder how exactly you are supposed to do a twist in your plot, if your obligated to reveal the truth in the marketing lest you "slap your audience in the face". . .

And no, you can't claim "faithfulness to the comic!" The marketed Mandarin was less faithful to the comic version than the true one in the movie ( hint: he's not the guy with the beard ).

+1

I don't get it either. The entire point of a twist like that is to completely catch the audience of guard. The whole argument of "we we were promised one thing and got another" is senseless. Whether you like the twist or not is a different issue altogether but don't complain that you were fooled by the trailers. They weren't going to reveal that in the marketing.

I don't get it either. The entire point of a twist like that is to completely catch the audience of guard. The whole argument of "we we were promised one thing and got another" is senseless. Whether you like the twist or not is a different issue altogether but don't complain that you were fooled by the trailers. They weren't going to reveal that in the marketing.

I still wonder how exactly you are supposed to do a twist in your plot, if your obligated to reveal the truth in the marketing lest you "slap your audience in the face". . .

And no, you can't claim "faithfulness to the comic!" The marketed Mandarin was less faithful to the comic version than the true one in the movie ( hint: he's not the guy with the beard ).

It's like *****ing about an M. Night Shyamalan movie for "promising" one thing and delivering another.

The other thing I never got about the Mandarin Twist haters is the fact that they're actually campaigning for Sir Ben Kingsley, a 69-year old dramatic actor, to do some damn fight scenes in a superhero flick. Go figure.

It's like *****ing about an M. Night Shyamalan movie for "promising" one thing and delivering another.

The other thing I never got about the Mandarin Twist haters is the fact that they're actually campaigning for Sir Ben Kingsley, a 69-year old dramatic actor, to do some damn fight scenes in a superhero flick. Go figure.

Actually I'm consistent I disliked Super Osama also but at least he was more epic and interesting than Killian. Marvel had done very well up to that point by doing what I'd always wanted to see respecting the CORE of the source material. That's what I personally felt up to that point anyway. Now my faith is broken and it makes me more uncomfortable it made so much money. If other follow suit for me personally marvel's golden movie age will be done.

I know that seems excessively gloom and doom and I have confidence Joss at least while keep Avengers on track but my confidence in MCU is really shaken.

First it was people complaining about marvel playing it safe, then they finally take a risk and give us a nice twist on what we expected, and people still complain.

I NEVER complained I was extremely pleased with Marvel. I'd enjoyed comic movies before but never anything close to the joy of the MCU.
MOS hits me pretty close but its only one film. The MCU was consistent for me.

It's like *****ing about an M. Night Shyamalan movie for "promising" one thing and delivering another.

Yeah, unless the twist is crap, which btw has made Shyamalan's career a disaster time and time again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

The other thing I never got about the Mandarin Twist haters is the fact that they're actually campaigning for Sir Ben Kingsley, a 69-year old dramatic actor, to do some damn fight scenes in a superhero flick. Go figure.

Are they? Or maybe they were expecting something far more serious? Could it be possible?

************************************

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quasimod0

First it was people complaining about marvel playing it safe, then they finally take a risk and give us a nice twist on what we expected, and people still complain.

I still wonder how exactly you are supposed to do a twist in your plot, if your obligated to reveal the truth in the marketing lest you "slap your audience in the face". . .

And no, you can't claim "faithfulness to the comic!" The marketed Mandarin was less faithful to the comic version than the true one in the movie ( hint: he's not the guy with the beard ).

Easy, don't focus on advertising the twist part at all, one way or another.

Nearly all movies with twists don't draw attention to the part. Scream didn't advertise Drew Barrymore as the main character in all the trailers and posters leading people to expect that and then dissapoint them

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHeatKitchen

The biggest slap in the face was Mandarin, simply because he was advertised as one thing and was something entirely different in the actual film. The presented a character, showed him as a focal point to the movie and plot, but turned him into a joke.

Like someone else mentioned, bad movies (Ghost Rider films, Fantastic Four films, XMO: Wolverine, etc etc) aren't slaps to the face. They were just failed attempts at making something worth a crap.

Even Galactus wasn't a slap in the face, because they at least attempted to put him in the cloud, sorta. There are limits to what you can do to keep him from looking ridiculous.

Absorbing Man was an issue, but not the biggest issue in the movie.

Abomination wasn't that bad. It was a new take on his appearance and all, but it fit in well enough with MCU, so I didn't have a problem with him.

Whiplash mainly had an issue with confusion of him being an amalgamation of a few characters rolled into one. The villain himself wasn't "as" bad, but accounting for all factors, that was a mess.

I agree that the whole "we were promised this and got that" argument is ridiculous. The Mandarin thing was a TWIST, they're supposed to be surprises, that's the point. Arguing that it should have been advertised is dumb because that's like putting the twist to the Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects in the advertisement, makes no sense. I do think that the marketing can be criticized for promising a darker, more epic movie with Tony facing his darkest hour, then giving us non stop jokes and humor in the second half that killed ANY sort of tension.

I agree that the whole "we were promised this and got that" argument is ridiculous. The Mandarin thing was a TWIST, they're supposed to be surprises, that's the point. Arguing that it should have been advertised is dumb because that's like putting the twist to the Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects in the advertisement, makes no sense. I do think that the marketing can be criticized for promising a darker, more epic movie with Tony facing his darkest hour, then giving us non stop jokes and humor in the second half that killed ANY sort of tension.

Surprises are fine and good. Couldn't have it been more like... a good surprise instead of a crappy one?

There's a poll in the Iron Man forums that says it's the majority anyways. But are you saying opinions are more or less right according to how many people are vocal about it?

No i'm saying while people have every right to disagree with the direction that was taken with the Mandarin, there seems to be some kind of consensus that marvel has made a major misstep and produced a bad movie when all the hard evidence available shows the exact opposite.

I agree that the whole "we were promised this and got that" argument is ridiculous. The Mandarin thing was a TWIST, they're supposed to be surprises, that's the point. Arguing that it should have been advertised is dumb because that's like putting the twist to the Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects in the advertisement, makes no sense. I do think that the marketing can be criticized for promising a darker, more epic movie with Tony facing his darkest hour, then giving us non stop jokes and humor in the second half that killed ANY sort of tension.

They didn't advertise Keyser Soze as one of the character nor did they advertise Bruce Willis with big letters saying "HE IS ALIVE"

Iron Man 3 DID advertise the Mandarin as the villain, they promoted him as the villain they got butts in seats to see him, then twisted it.

Those other movies didn't focus on the twist characters in the marketing the way IM3 did, so people didn't go in expecting to see Benicio del toro as Keyser Soze becuase the advertising didn't tell them to expect that, IM3 told viewers what to expect then ruined that expectation with lies.

Easy, don't focus on advertising the twist part at all, one way or another.

Nearly all movies with twists don't draw attention to the part. Scream didn't advertise Drew Barrymore as the main character in all the trailers and posters leading people to expect that and then dissapoint them

SO MUCH WIN in this post

IM3 didn't advertise the twist part at all, either. It advertised "The Mandarin," and then the movie showed that the character was a necessary ruse. Are you saying that IM3 would have been a better movie if they hadn't advertised Ben Kingsley's character at all? Because that would be, you know, not advertising the twist part at all, as you suggest.

By the way: did you ask for a refund at the theater because The Mandarin didn't deliver "as advertised?" The way I understand it is that the vast majority of people went to the movie called "IRON MAN 3" to see, you know, Iron Man. And, just as was the case in IM1 and IM2, whatever villain(s) were thrown out there would be entirely incidental to the title character, the one everybody paid money to see.

No i'm saying while people have every right to disagree with the direction that was taken with the Mandarin, there seems to be some kind of consensus that marvel has made a major misstep and produced a bad movie when all the hard evidence available shows the exact opposite.

What serious poll about the twist is available to confirm... or just the BO numbers? I mean, TF2 was a movie ruined by all the cheese, but the BO shows us it was a successful movie. Doesn't mean it was good.

**************************************

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

IM3 didn't advertise the twist part at all, either. It advertised "The Mandarin," and then the movie showed that the character was a necessary ruse. Are you saying that IM3 would have been a better movie if they hadn't advertised Ben Kingsley's character at all? Because that would be, you know, not advertising the twist part at all, as you suggest.

It's hard to imagine how to improve the twist through the trailers. If it was absolutely necessary I;'d have done the twist in a more serious way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

By the way: did you ask for a refund at the theater because The Mandarin didn't deliver "as advertised?" The way I understand it is that the vast majority of people went to the movie called "IRON MAN 3" to see, you know, Iron Man. And, just as was the case in IM1 and IM2, whatever villain(s) were thrown out there would be entirely incidental to the title character, the one everybody paid money to see.

What serious poll about the twist is available to confirm... or just the BO numbers? I mean, TF2 was a movie ruined by all the cheese, but the BO shows us it was a successful movie. Doesn't mean it was good.

**************************************

It's hard to imagine how to improve the twist through the trailers. If it was absolutely necessary I;'d have done the twist in a more serious way.

What serious poll about the twist is available to confirm... or just the BO numbers? I mean, TF2 was a movie ruined by all the cheese, but the BO shows us it was a successful movie. Doesn't mean it was good.

TF2 got destroyed by the critics. it had one of the worst critical reception of any big blockbuster ever. IM3 on the other hand, is still the highest rated superhero movie of the year by critics and also has the highest Cinemascore grades (A), the highest or 2nd highest audience ratings on RT and IMDB and commercially destroyed everyone else by almost 500 million at the box office. Films that are generally considered 'bad' or 'below average' simply do not have all the credentials IM3 does. They may have one or two, but not that combination of critical success, tremendous box office and very good audience reception.

IM3 didn't advertise the twist part at all, either. It advertised "The Mandarin," and then the movie showed that the character was a necessary ruse. Are you saying that IM3 would have been a better movie if they hadn't advertised Ben Kingsley's character at all? Because that would be, you know, not advertising the twist part at all, as you suggest.
.

They advertised Ben Kingsleys The Mandain as the villian in posters, TV spots, trailers.

Him not being the Mandarin was the twist, but they built him up, hammered into the previews and advertising that he will be the Mandarin, and he wasn't.

No other movie with a twist has ever put so much attention on the part (mandarin character) that will be the twist.

Thus they raised expectations and dashed them spectacularly.

If they hadn't hammered into audiences to expect this fearsome & heavily promoted villian the they wouldn't have been as shocked and annoyed as they were.

It's called a bait & switch. They baited audiences.

The Usual Suspects, Sixth Sense and others with twists didn't bait audiences to expect something that was not provided.